There has been plenty of blog coverage already about the Supreme Court's new decision in Schuette v. BAMN, with commentary mostly focused on the well-rehearsed arguments over the merits or mistakes of affirmative action, and some about the partisanship or analytical approaches of the Justices. I think the most interesting issue is the open door for diversity among states about how to approach this issue going forward - which invites discussion of the laboratories of democracy concept, the various market metaphors for competition between states, and the laws of unintended consequences. When states like Michigan really end affirmative action in college admissions, it could produce an interesting shifting effect of minority students to neighboring states, making it easier for those university to reach their diversity goals. (This assumes that states will split on this issue, some favoring affirmative action, some banning it - Michigan's ban resulted from a public referendum, and affirmative action is more popular with voters in some other states). If the dichotomy becomes stark, graduating from a particular state university that today might have equivalents in neighboring states could instead carry signaling for potential employers - minority graduates from a state like Michigan might claim or attain some prestige from having attained a more competitve spot, while graduates from affirmative action states may be valued by certain employers for having experienced a more diverse environment in their formative education. Of course, it is uncertain whether bans on affirmative action are even enforceable in practice - many schools have faculty committees that make admission decisions for a great number of mid-range applications, and there is plenty of room for individual faculty members to use subjective judgments about applicants - meaning professors may still apply affirmative action in praxis or masqued by pretextual considerations even where the state does not have it as an official policy.